David Gibson: August 2008 Archives

This is why newspapers are withering and "The Daily Show" is flourishing. It's not the fault of journalism--my chosen profession--but because in a world where John McCain picks Sarah Palin to be "a heartbeat away from the presidency," sometimes only satire can reveal the truth...Viva Swift!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183521&title=john-mccain-chooses-a-running

John McCain has certainly revived his maverick label by picking--or plucking from obscurity--freshman Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. (WaPo coverage here, and NYT coverage here.) Like every candidate, there are pluses and minuses with her.

On the plus side, Christian conservatives (as God-o-Meter knows and shows), are going to be delighted. She is a self-described "hockey mom" who is pro-life and a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. She is a moose-hunting mother of five, her latest--born just last April--has Down syndrome, and she never considered the option of abortion. She has bucked  the scandal-plagued GOP establishment in Alaska, and has shown a mild green streak without really undermining her state's interests in mining and Big Oil. She is against taxes (except, apparently, when it came to building stuff in her own town), and against gay marriage. Check, check, check.

She is a sweetheart, a 44-year-old fresh face who is as far outside the Beltway as you can possibly get without being Russian. And she is so attractive the Obama camp will have to be careful not to look like they're bullying her, or patronizing her.

And those things are also major downsides in the general election. Will someone like Palin really pull in those supposedly disaffected Hillary supporters? Not likely, not after Bill's show-stopping speech.

Moreover, how can the McCain camp work the "inexperienced" wedge against Obama when Sarah Palin will be a heartbeat away from an Oval Office that would be occupied by John McCain, who would be the oldest man ever elected president? She has less than two years as governor, and before that the sum total of her governing experience was as mayor of Wasilla, a town of less than 7,000.

If Obama has been painted as little more than a good-looking Esquire cover guy, how about Palin, a former beauty queen who was runner-up in 1984 as Miss Alaska? Some will think McCain picked his daughter, others his third wife. (What is it with Republicans and beauty pageants, anyway?) Palin is sharper than Dan Quayle, but still...

Imagine the Biden-Palin VP debate. Voters want change, but they also want ballast. And they want someone who can step in. Sure, Palin is a wonderful mom. But she is the mother of FIVE, and the last a special needs infant born just FOUR MONTHS ago. She'll have to have Mary Poppins and a couple Super Nannys with 911 on speed-dial if she hopes to fill the 24/7 job as Vice-President.

Her environmental cred may not stretch too far, either. Check out the dissection by the HuffPost's Chris Kelly of her Polar Bear record and her January NYTimes op-ed in which she said all was well with the big critters. Now that the polar bears are actually swimming across hundreds of miles of open water looking for receding ice floes, you can imagine the video in the camapign ads to come.  

And while she has a reputation as a whistle-blower on ethics, she is also under investigation for a firing and other machinations related to penalties against her estranged ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. Add to that the fact that the dominant Republican Party in Alaska is a cesspool of scandals and indictments, and Palin's odor of sanctity may not endure.

So what does the choice of Palin say to all those "new" evangelicals? Will her fresh face attract them? Or will she come across as the old religious right in a new guise?  

Palin could prove to be McCain's salvation, and a necessary gamble given his own weaknesses. (Funny, McCain's people were saying the other day that the choice of Biden pointed up Obama's weaknesses, and did not compensate for them...) But the audacity (nice word) of his choice could also smack of desperation.

My sense is that the positives balance out the negatives, and McCain can't afford a "wash" in terms of gains and losses. Palin will reassure the Religious Right, and surely draw in those voters, especially Christian "soccer moms," who see her as "one of us," only with a hockey stick. But with all voters growing in their suspicion of the use of religion in politics, as shown by the latest Pew poll, Palin's best weapon may be firing blanks.

PS: I wasn't sure, but it's pronounced PAY-lin. We'll all know that soon enough.

Earlier this month Stuart Shepard, correspondent for the Focus on the Family network (you know, that OTHER religious gathering in Colorado), had a segment in which he less than half-jokingly asked prayers for torrential rains to inundate Invesco Field during last night's acceptance speech by Obama. God would want that, Shepard said (as you can see here), given that millions of unborn lives and the institution of marriage are at stake. It would send a message, he said. 

You'd think that after all those Falwell-Robertson et al gaffes over the years about hurricanes as God's wrath on Florida, or New Orleans, or wherever, they'd have learned. And the criticism was such that Focus on the Family did pull the video a few days later. Perhaps that was a mistake, as the weather was beautiful last night.

Or could it be that karma is more powerful than James Dobson? According to the Washington Post this morning, GOP officials are so concerned with the prospect of Tropical Storm Gustav swamping New Orleans while the party parties in Minneapolis--echoes of Bush's Katrina debacle--that they may delay the start of the convention, and President Bush could even cancel his appearance Monday night. That could only be a good thing for McCain.

Meanwhile, the Exodus replays itself (my in-laws among the refugees), as we have learned some lessons three years after Katrina, even if we have yet to fix anything.

In a new study that could recast the seemingly endless debates over abortion and Roe v. Wade, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good yesterday released a new study that, according to the news release, is the first study of its kind to look at the "long- and short-term effects of public policy on the abortion rate over a twenty-year period.

"The findings," it says, "reveal that social and economic supports for women and families dramatically reduce the number of abortions. As Democrats gather in Denver for their national convention, and as Republicans prepare to gather next week, the study offers compelling findings that pro-life and pro-choice leaders from both political parties can unite behind to reduce abortions."

Indeed, such findings would (I would think) provide ammunition for those looking to move beyond the stalemate--and sterile debate--over Roe v. Wade--but it would be a major challenge to the GOP to match their pro-life rhetoric with deeds.

Catholics in Alliance commissioned the study, which was conducted by Joseph Wright, a political science professor at Penn State University and a visiting fellow at the University of Notre Dame, and Michael Bailey, a professor of American government at Georgetown University. You can read it here (in a 19-page PDF file). Tom Roberts at NCR also has coverage.

And Aristotle, Aquinas, Archbishop Chaput and various Bishops, and Brokaw...All weigh in on the House Speaker's response to Brokaw on Sunday morning's "Meet the Press" (scroll to the end) in which he raised--yet again--the age-old question, "When does life begin?"

Pelosi's response did not, to say the least, do justice to the Catholic tradition:

MR. BROKAW:  Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker.  When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI:  I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.  And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.  And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months.  We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose.  Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.  There's very clear distinctions.  This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.  And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.  As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

MR. BROKAW:  The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...

REP. PELOSI:  I understand that.

MR. BROKAW:  ...begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI:  I understand.  And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.  So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.

Brokaw was taking up what Rick Warren began at Saddleback, when he asked Obama and McCain that question--though without exploring the lameness (Obama's "above my pay grade") or inconsistency (McCain's "stem cell research is okay") of those answers. On the one hand, it is good to see Augustine, as well as Aristotle before him and Aquinas after him, among others, being discussed in the public square. Very Catholic, we must admit. But  "Meet the Press" doesn't seem like the most enlightening forum for such an issue. Wouldn't the discussion more proper to that venue be about public policy on abortion?  

Pelosi's response earned the first and sharpest retort from Denver's Archbishop Chaput, whose statement one commenter likened to "an attack ad." Maybe not quite, but he's doughty, as ever: "Catholics who make excuses for [abortion--whether they're famous or not--fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The U.S. bishops' Pro-Life and Doctrinal committee heads responded here, and Washington's Archbishop Donald Wuerl also weighed in with a measured statement that included this paragraph:

We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.

As regards public policy, it is interesting that the final part of Pelosi's answer has received less notice, and no response (that I've seen) from church authorities:

REP. PELOSI: ... But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.  My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been--and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.

The best discussion I've seen so far, and by far, is over at dotCommonweal, where several pros weigh in with thoughtful exchanges. Check it out here.

All in all, the Pelosi-Brokaw-Bishops exchange illustrates once again not only the difficulty in linking religious precepts with public policy, but also the difficulty in being a Catholic in public life. With Biden on the ticket, it seems likely this debate will continue. Will it scare McCain away from choosing a Catholic veep?